Manning Up to Palin

2 Dec

Well, it’s about time.

Your humble writer has been waiting for a reputable national voice to harmonize with on the subject of Sarah Palin since her fortunate VP election loss. I had begun to fear that no such voice was coming. At least, before it was too late. Two years ago I declared Sarah Palin not the future. Since then it has been more a hope than a substantial prediction. Now, finally, blemishes in the immutable Republican Wall are appearing, and it seems our private political wilderness soul searching may finally turn public.

Image courtesy iMaksim.com

Conservatives have long taken unity as a point of pride. But equally cherished is Seriousness, of which Palin does not have a single bit in her entire body. Outsiders to the Republican movement can be forgiven for seeing a single monolith and criticizing it as such. But the fault lines are now publicly being displayed, and how the fractured Republican base reacts in the next year in the run-up to the next primary will be interesting to watch. Some camps to watch for and take note of:

It was The Bow Tie Crowd that drew me to Conservatism in the first place. These intellects, now mostly deceased, looked at the world with pragmatism as their ideology, and what worked became policy. William Buckley, Irving Kristol, William Safire were the greats – their (at times) adequate successors of George Will, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer (those who harrumphed at Krauthammer should read his very well reasoned and prescient recommendation to restructure the tax code around a gas tax – in effect, the Liberal dream consumption tax) will influence what is left of the reasoned, thinking wing of the party. Joe Scarborough’s defense of the “blue bloods” was really a defense of a more reasonable age where principles were held in a loser grip, and compromise was less of a four letter word. David Frum’s firing from the Bow Tie stronghold of the American Enterprise Institute did not bode well for the long term success of thinking conservatives. Perhaps we can reverse this trend. 

In the George W. Bush era, too many bow tie wearers branched off into Neo-conservatism. Irving’s progeny took up residency here some time ago, and Krauthammer dips his wheelchair spoke in regularly. Nostalgia for the Cold War and a “Yes We Can” attitude has been broken, humbled in wars in Central Asia that most Republicans are now questioning. Many outside of Republican circles may not realize that the neo-con movement involved large chunks of voters, not just a circle of Presidential advisors. Huge percentages of the electorate in 2002 and 2004 listed national security as their #1 issue. By 2006, that vote waned, and the movement lost steam, the Iraq Surge as the last full-throated gasp. The only national security issue I see in 2012 is how soon we are leaving Afghanistan, and at what cost. If Korea goes hot, however, please disregard everything I write in this column.

The previous boogeyman of the Left, the godful Evangelical Right, has been quietly disillusioned for some time. Note that Mike Huckabee is not a serious player, and Mitt Romney is a legit candidate. Sarah Palin spends more time burnishing her tax cutting rhetoric than publicly discussing her faith and explaining how she speaks in tongues. It will be better for the country as a whole if what is Caesar’s is left to Caesar, and the evangelicals concentrate on their faith and good works outside of the explicitly political arena.  

Which leaves us with the unhereto unmentioned Tea Party, the comic book-like hero antithesis of the Bow Tie villain. Uninformed, angry, unreasoned, and potent. Now that the grassroots enthusiasm won a (in the grand scheme of things, unimportant) midterm, the party is starting to question the rationality of letting such a force dictate the play for the upcoming grand prize in 2012. And for good reason. The Tea Party, like all emotional and ideologically driven movements, would rather take defeat over an impure victory. It is the great strength of America’s two party system that the establishment party battleships do not feel this way.

Many astute readers at this point are wondering where the vast majority of prominent Republican politicians fit in. Why, no where, of course. Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Boehner, et al ceased having a camp a long time ago, and are now Corporate Politicians, more similar to their colleagues across the aisle than the constituency movements that organize to elect them. Those few politicians that are still part of a movement (Rand Paul) never rise to sufficient prominence to lead the party generally, though they can influence policy choices. And previous corporate politicians reduce their national chances by veering too far – intellectual heavyweight Newt Gingrich, for example, proponent of healthcare reform, has descended into Tea Party madness.

An intriguing difference between Republicans and Democrats is the opposing models their cultures use to head their movements. Democrats seek an Intellectual. Republicans look for a Leader and Manager. Conservative policy wonks would rather be on a staff or in a think tank than run for office. Democrats want their wonks (Clinton, Obama) on the top of the ticket. When elected, this means Republican Presidents have a deep bench of advisors, department heads, and policy analysts at their disposal. Democrats, not so much. At first blush, in 2000, George Bush was the perfect candidate – an empty vessel who would hire the right people and whose gut was in the right place. His appointees had more clout, credentials, and staying power than his successor, who chose poorly initially, and is seeing an exodus early. The model that has served Republicans well – pick a leader who leans on the intellectuals – is in peril. 

So where does this leave us for 2012? Is the party current capable of choosing Reagan, Bush or Bush again? Republicans are not comfortable with public disagreements and battles. We prefer to find a consensus candidate that balances competing forces – Bow Ties, Neo-cons, Evangelicals and Tea Partiers – behind the scenes. Joe Scarborough has rightly recognized that the danger in 2012 is that Sarah Palin, a vacuous movement true believer, has a shot at blowing that well crafted system out of the water. Will the rational party rally to save itself? We can hope.

29 Responses to “Manning Up to Palin”

  1. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    Palin has her uses. Like you, I hope she won’t be considered a presidential candidate until she’s at least as old as Hillary and has alot more experience under her belt, if ever at all. In the interim, she’s been great at raising money and making the elitist snobs on the left bring their distain for the electorate out of the closet. The demonization of “teabaggers” and Palin from the left has done more to elect fiscal conservatives to office than anything the right, either the TEA movement or the establishment, has done.
    I hope that Palin is a continual presence on the media for this reason, even if the thought of her in national office makes me shudder.

  2. Brian Castner December 2, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Interesting. I always thought the patronizing and paternalistic condescension of the Left towards the victimized unwashed was evident before. If that view does need a champion, can I wish for one other than Palin? I do agree, however, that the Dems lost the midterms, as opposed to the R’s winning it. But that is true of nearly every midterm.

  3. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    I cannot be so polite, I still see it as distain rather than condescention.
    Yes, and I’ll wish for a champion other than Palin as well. There are better spoken folks who don’t make so many shudder. If you’re one, you need to step up. I thought I might be one for about a day, with the idea that I might strike for the seat Tom Reed won in November. Then I saw what it would take to make the attempt ($$). I hope Tom does a good job, and more power to him for his determination to see it through.

  4. BobbyCat December 2, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    Let’s all give thanks to Dr. Frank Luntz for the latest conservative buzz word :’elitist’ which is now used as a pejorative to describe those who are literate and read regularly about current events, are therefore knowledgable, and believes in rational thought , as opposed to faith-based beliefs. The right had to find some pejorative term to describe all those Americans who think that Palin, and Beck and that ilk are ignoramuses. The tea party right can no longer hide behind the stuffy intellectuals like Bill Buckley, Bill Rusher, Irving Kristol and his son Bill – who was so hot for Alaska’s dumbbell-bombshell Governor that he brought her to DC. But Bill Kristol is liek the Dr. Frankenstein of Washington. He created a monster -Palin – and now he can’t control her.

    There are so many of these new conservative tea partiers who can’t find Italy on a map that the old guard GOP – the intelligent ones – don’t know how to defend them. So their go-to guy, Frank Luntz comes up with a word to describe intelligent Americans – “elitists”.

    Yes, next to Palin , even Joe Scarborough looks like a Rhodes Scholar. But Joe has a big advantage. He has “Morning Joe” , a 3 hours national platform, 5 day per weeks, which he uses to run for slam his competitiors while he runs for President. (Shhhhhh. Joe thinks its his little secret)

    Yes we need more conservatives like Scarborough to give more tax breaks to the wealthy to the tune of 700 Billion while taking away unemployment extensions to the tune of a few B’s. The wealthy need the extra dough for a European vacation or a new Lexus; The unemployed need the money to feed their families and keep the house warm. It looks like Mitch McConnell and the GOP will win this fight. Fuck the poor. Let em eat cake, eh?

  5. Christopher Smith December 2, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    You know I’m a fan of Andrew Sullivan who has more in common with the bowtie crowd than the neo-con or teabag crowd. I loved his article yesterday titled “The Dickishness of The GOP”

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-dickishness-of-the-gop.html

    “What we’ve observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party’s arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama’s first two years, universal healthcare.”

    and

    “This is not conservatism, properly understood, a disposition that respects the institutions and traditions of government, that can give as well as take, that seeks the national interest before partisan concerns, and that respects both the other branches of government and seeks to work with them. These people are not conservatives in this core civilized sense; they are partisan vandals.”

    If the party has come to this, as Sullivan and Frum would have you believe, there is no other choice for the top of the ticket than Sarah Palin, who represents this new ideology better than any current Republican. The Tea Party that was created and watered to help the GOP out of the wilderness has now grown out of their control. They can either choose to ride the wave or they can try and buck the trend and find another “establishment” candidate like McCain or Dole to lose the next election. I vacillate as to whether Palin will be on the top of the ticket or the VP choice again, but it would seem a ticket of Palin/Romney or Palin/Portman or Palin and some senior senator is what is on tap.

    The results of the latest PPP for GOP frontrunners indicate a strong foundation for her to run, but her unfavorables are incredibly high outside the Republican base.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/30/ppp-poll-romney-voters-a-risk-to-switch-to-obama-if-he-loses-nomination/

    This will be a Tea Party ticket, IMO. Thus, Palin is your obvious Presidential candidate, unless Rubio builds a quick resume and reputation.

  6. Brian Castner December 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    @ BobbyCat – just to correct the record, I know you hate Luntz and all, because you see him on Foxnews, but Liberals were called “elitist” long before him. It is not a “latest conservative buzz word.” Dukakis was called an elitist. I’m pretty sure Republicans have called Liberals elitist since the invention of the limo and the martini. For the rebuttal of the rest of your rant, read my original article.

    @ Chris – I know you love Andrew Sullivan, he’s the Left’s favorite “conservative.” Like Lieberman is our favorite Democrat. The last two years, the elected politicians have been in the throes of the Tea Party euphoria. I have some hope that will wane in the Presidential primary (thought it will last in 2011 in Congress). I think Palin would lose to Obama, but a theoretical Republican has a chance. And I still don’t see Rubio as that guy, but I’m not sure who else to tell you.

  7. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    Actually, I see the left as being the elitists that are typified by BobbyCat’s quote, “Let them eat cake.” People that say, “Oh, the rich buy soda pop, too, it isn’t only a tax on the poor!” are basically saying, “I can afford it, so let those who can’t eat cake.”
    Palin has no chance at the presidency. I see projections that she’ll be the top of the ticket next time as wishful thinking from those who want this president to have a second term.
    Really, whether that race will be difficult or not is purely Obama’s choice. He can listen to the people *AT LAST* or move on to a new job. Maybe the UN will have him.

    • Christopher Smith December 2, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

      Leo, the polls of likely voters on the right regularly put Palin as the top potential nominee. It’s partially a function of her broad name recognition and constant media presence, but it hasn’t died down yet and it will probably grow.

      The Republicans don’t have a candidate on the horizon with tea party bonafides and an ability to play towards the center. So, they’ll either choose someone from the far right wing of the party or choose some standard bearer from the old school of the party and get their asses kicked. Their best chance is to run Romney at the top of the ticket with Huckabee as VP, but Romney is loathed by the tea party base. In previous races, they always went with an establishment candidate, I don’t see that happening this year. Palin is the one who gets the base fired up and if paired with an establishment VP, she’ll cruise to the nomination and could very well win.

  8. Bbill December 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    “Elitist” in the normal sense refers to the plutocracy, the top 1 – 2 percent income group. Of course the GOP is beholden to that group at the exclusion of all others.

    “Elitist” in the FoxNews / Sarah Palin / Koch bros sense refers to anyone with intellectual curiosity or a decent vocabulary. In teabag land, readers are by definition Communists!!! or Socialists!!!

  9. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    OH, c’mon Bbill… most of that 1-2% are the “Patriotic Millionaires” that insist that everyone in their realm of economic influence should be paying more taxes rather than hiring new employees.
    I find myself in a pretty tenuous position today; I sure don’t want Palin as president, and I sure don’t want to see all the blood and fortune that was expended during the cold war (which I am proud to have served during) as being wasted by those socialists within.

  10. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    And, re: Andrew Sullivan’s article (I don’t know enough about him to comment) – I was paying attention to the 8 years that preceded Obama and see nothing AT ALL different today. the opposition party is still only opposition, objecting to every move the party in power attempts. The leaks are more severe. The wars are still underway. Gitmo is still open. The Patriot Act is still in place. There’s another jobless recovery underway. Is life better? HELL NO.
    If this is the best that new leadership can do, I’ll take the TEA movement.
    Oh, and… I read.

  11. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    Good points, Chris. Polls have been as much hopeful as accurate these days, but they still indicate direction pretty well. I can only hope that something happens to discourage Palin… And, what says anyone will be running against Obama again? Has the attempt to gather biometric data from diplomats tarnished Hillary so much, or is it the record of Obama’s huge success and popularity that rules out a primary challenge in 2012?

    • Christopher Smith December 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

      I think Obama needs to worry more about the left (who he has abandoned in his constant pursuit of bipartisanship) and their desire to primary him. Rumors amongst the leftist cabal (I get the mailer) have Russ Feingold and Howard Dean currently ginning up a base of support to run a primary Obama in 2012. Think Kennedy in 1980.

  12. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    OH, this may be the wrong place to make this comment, but… I’m new to this medium and the only other article I’ve seen with this many comments was more you guys in a snit than substance. Good work staying on topic this time 🙂

    • Christopher Smith December 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

      Leo, I actually spend a lot of time deleting comments which veer into the personal. If I left them all in, we’d have 30-40 comments per article. If you see it veer off into nastiness, it’s because I’m responsible for the nastiness or I’m onsite somewhere and can’t edit comments. 🙂

  13. BobbyCat December 2, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    The tea party people are not wealthy. They are not upper income. They are mainly uninformed, middle class, working people. Many are illiterate, some don’t bother to read and instead get their news from Fox, which is akin to being illiterate. I suspect there are very few original thinkers amonst them. Probably few critical thinkers. They are followers, not leaders. That’s why they are voting against their own interests. They want tax cuts for the upper incomes. Does anybody who reads, still believe that canard about tax cuts for the rich stimulating the economy? Do they really believe trickle-down economics?

    Thats sad. I’m sorry so many Americans are so uninformed. But who else would lionize people like Palin and her retinue of dumbbells?

    I don’t give two shit about Andrew Sullivan’s politics, but he makes eminent sense. Is that why his fellow conservatives dislike him?

    @BBill. good post.

  14. Brian Castner December 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    @ BobbyCat – UNESCO estimates the literacy rate in the United States is 99% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate). Even if that is high, the profile of the illiterate in this country is inner-city minorities, not working class and middle class white’s, which is what the Tea Party is made of. Your conclusion, that the Tea Party people do not read, are not literate, and are not as informed as you, and that is only conceivable reason why believe what they do, is the patronizing condescension and disdain Leo and I were discussing before. How about you put aside the ideology for a second (your favorite plea), and admit someone could be informed and intelligent and disagree with you.

    @ Chris – Not the last reference to Carter we will hear before the end of this election season.

  15. Leo Wilson December 2, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    Nobody today is talking about tax cuts for anyone, except those on the left who daren’t speak the truth. There’s no chance of tax cuts for anyone, only a chance of keeping peoples’ taxes the same as they are today. The cuts happened in 2001 and 2003.

    All that’s being discussed is whether or not a tax increase is appropriate during a jobless recovery after a recession, and only one party can make or break the decision: the Democrats.

    In a few weeks, the other party may get some momentum towards reversing the pending increase if this party allows them to happen.
    Contingencies being discussed, “We’ll allow a temporary extension and address the entire tax code in two years”, or “We’ll only increase taxes on the rich” are just misdirection. Even if they make the current rates permanent, nothing will stop new legislation from being proposed that will increase the burden on the rich (sorry, $250k is a lot more than I make, but isn’t “rich” by a long shot) or stop new legislation to revamp the entire tax code.

    Are my taxes going to increase by almost $300 per month or not? That’s the only question to answer. There are no cuts.

  16. Peter G December 2, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    You can thank George W. Bush and his “sunset clause” for the inevitable “tax increase” that will take effect 1/1/11. His tax cuts will expire, as they were structured to do back in 2001 and 2003 . Of course, nobody complained back then because 2011 was 10 and 8 years away, respectively. Now it’s time to pay the piper. Make your check out to Bushie and the Republican Party. I don’t blame the Democrats for refusing to add another $700 billion to the federal deficit. Nor do I attempt to rationalize the Republican hypocrisy of adding $700 billion to the deficit a month after a midterm campaign during which all of the Republicans promised to reduce that same deficit. If you can find a single economist or labor expert who will stake their reputation on the fallacy that a tax cut for rich people results in job creation and a stimulated economy, you let me know. It hasn’t happened since 2001 and 2003, and the best predictor of the future…is the past.

  17. lefty December 2, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    I do not think that Rubio is going to have enough time for a 2012 run.  

    I do think that Chris Christie from New Jersey would be a great bet…if he wanted to run.  A lot of his actions would align with the Tea Party but he could be viewed as an outsider.  He has executive experience from a big state and telling the Fed to go fuck themselves over the tunnel project would win the hearts of many voters.

  18. BobbyCat December 2, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    @Brian
    RE: Illiteracy.
    Those who suffer from illiteracy do not read and that includes most of the undereducated in this country on the right and the left. Some cannot read, some are functionally illiterate, but most others will not or do not read for their own reasons. Sarah Palin is an illiterate, not because she cannot read, but because she chooses not to. Thus her embarrassing interview with Katie Couric.

    Let’s make this simple. Many of these fringe people on the right are illiterates. They believe crazy stuff that is spoon-fed to them by zealots, TV preachers, Fox and other fanatics. If they read they would discover that the myths can be easily debunked.

    The Anderson Cooper interview with that Texas congressman /Birther is a good example of an illiterate man. He believes in whatever mythology fits his disposition. If he was a reader he would soon discover that Obama was born in Hawaii and not in some crazy conspiracy. Tea Partiers and the religious right are free to believe in all kinds of crazy stuff.

    If I am condescending, its because I refuse to be lectured to by idiots. I don’t suffer fools Brian, and I make no apology for it. I think I understand the main facets of the tea party philosophy. Smaller govt, less debt, etc. those are legitimate beliefs that can be debated. Fine. But even true believers intelligentsia like Rand Paul cannot describe a chaotic world where 50 million American old people don’t have medical care (Medicare) or Social Security checks.

    The vast majority of tea party people are angry but have no core beliefs. They have no beliefs because they don’t read. Its too bad they suffer from illiteracy. Maybe they are working 2 jobs and don’t have the time. Maybe they would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than read Time. I don’t know. My main beef is that these people want more for themselves and nothing for their fellow citizens. They say ‘fuck the poor” because I’ve got mine. And I say “fuck them” right back. The tea party should be re-named the “Narcissist Party”.

    I know that the mainstream GOP is embarrassed by these know-nothing folks and are starting to distance themselves from them. If I were them, I would too. In politics, Ignorance ain’t bliss, its a disaster.

  19. Leo Wilson December 3, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    BobbyCat, I can’t disagree more with your rant. What the TEA movement wants is discretion, not exclusion. Having your money taken from you at the end of a government gun to be given at someone else’s discretion to someone they deem needy is thievery, not generosity. The UMMC disperses more than half a trillion dollars each year without the medical loss mandate that private insurers have been burdened with, and less than 30% of that is payments for deserving citizens’ medical bills.
    If I give $5.00 to a homeless person, she’ll get a burger and a cot at the Y tonight. If I and every citizen in the country give $5.00 to the government for a program to “help the homeless”, there’s a more than even chance that she’ll sleep in the snow or buy a safe place to sleep another way.
    In another thread, I discussed the impacts of Johnson and Clinton’s trade decisions, which have created a long term, economic cul de sac for the poor and left them with nowhere to go. Those decisions fucked the poor out of their traditional means for economic mobility and leave them with no ability to stand on their own feet. No amount of handouts are going to replace that ability to improve their own lives through their own efforts.
    While ignorance isn’t bliss, it isn’t criminal, either. The guy who digs a ditch is a citizen who votes and, through that vote, has a say in the guidance of this country. This has been a GOOD thing, and our country has profited from it because the individual citizens have benefited from it. If something’s changed and life isn’t as rosy as it used to be, at least admit that MORE leftists idealogy is in place than when things were rosier. I won’t assign blame, but the leftist agenda as applied for the past few decades (and that includes Bush 43) has been far more prevasive, not less. It hasn’t made life better for anyone.

  20. Leo Wilson December 3, 2010 at 8:39 am #

    @Peter, you have correctly identified the origin of the pending tax increase. Bush is no longer in power and can do nothing for the citizenry today. What is pending is the Obama/Pelosi/Reed tax increase, no matter how you spin it.

  21. Leo Wilson December 3, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    @lefty, I tend to agree that Rubio doesn’t have time to build a resonsible name and position in this country… we see what happens when someone comes on the national scene and is projected in the presidency immediately with our current administration: bumbling incompetence and seething public upheaval with no profit to pay the way. Take out the word, “responsible” and Rubio is another Obama.

  22. BobbyCat December 3, 2010 at 9:26 am #

    Leo, I don’t understand what you’re talking about other than – the government is forcing you to pay taxes at the point of a gun and you don’t like it. Good luck with your revolution.

  23. Leo Wilson December 3, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    Yeah, the whole post lacked continuity, and thanks for not challenging me on the assertions. I couldn’t have provided references to back them up – the “less than 30%” thing came from Rodger Williams during the welfare reform debate under Clinton.

    My revolution is happening already, via the election process. So far, so good, and thank you for the well-wishing.

  24. Leo Wilson December 3, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    If there’s an underlying point, Bobby, it’s that claims of benevolence of that program ring hollow. When more than 70% of the funding is used for something other than what is presented to the people as justification for the expenditure, I suspect that it isn’t about the 30% that is spent to pay for medical care, it’s far more about the 70% that is spent on other things that aren’t discussed in front of the tax payers.

  25. Peter G December 3, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    If you make more than $250,000 and you live in WNY, you are among the wealthiest people in our area and you SHOULD pay more in taxes. For the vast majority of us who make less, we deserve a continuation of the tax break. And keep in mind that these Bush tax cuts were simply a way for Bush to redistribute the Clinton surplus (that was gift-wrapped for the Bush administration) to Bush’s rich pals, as well as a way to ramp up the popularity numbers overnight.

  26. Gabe December 4, 2010 at 4:51 am #

    Whatever, on anything deeper than a superficial level, there’s not much of a difference between the two big money parties we’re stuck “choosing” between each election cycle. Your yearning for the old days of civilized “bow tie” conservatism will fall on deaf ears, as the “kindler, gentler” plutocratic GOP party is ancient history. Yahoo Populism is the new pink, get used to it. The people are mad as hell and can’t fucking find Ireland on a map.

    No right-wing idea system endorsed by the mainstream is doing us any good at this time nor will it help in ushering in a sane future for all of humanity. By advocating conventional wisdom “conservative” policies, you’re effectively endorsing:

    1. The preservation of hereditary (anti-meritocratic) class power and the monopolistic (fewer and fewer big players controlling the whole pie) monetary (unregulated casino) system that accessorizes it.
    2. The corrupt and repugnant pursuit of ethically-blind self-interest goals above all other concerns. We’re supposed to be a civilization, not a free-for-all, darwinistic Jurrasic Park of ruthless thugs calling all the shots.
    3. Entropic, globalized industry that is no longer loyal to any particular nations, peoples, or biomes.
    4. The continued rape and dessication (in terms of human habitation) of our planet in the name of impossible “economic growth,” a concept that is completely ignorant of the fact that perpetual growth can not persist on a world of finite resources.

    To your credit, much of the so-called “left” in this county buys somewhat into the same fallacies. I suppose we can put a lot of blame on our abysmal education system which exists mostly to crank out obedient worker drones rather than nurture creative critical thinkers.

    Your tires are bald as shit.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: